Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Should it be a crime? (Read 22928 times)

I agree with those who believe that the forum should be a place where we can come for information and support. In Lisa's thread on what we want in the forum, Ann ended a post with a quote from Gandhi: Be the change you want to see. So, in that spirit, I want to throw this up for discussion.

The question is: Should it be a crime to engage in unprotected sex after you test positive for the virus?

Before we start, I have to point out that in some states it is already a crime. You should know the law of your particular state. The states are all over the jurisprudential map here, some with no regulations, some misdemeanors, some felonies, some sentence enhancements, many allowing for jail or prison time. If you are sexually active, you owe it to yourself to know your local law, which you can check out at the following link:

My answer to the question is No! I think it is unfair to penalize one party when each party bears responsibility. The danger involved in unprotected sex is widely known. Anyone who can watch MTV, use a computer, or read a newspaper knows that unprotected sex is dangerous. It is not rational, I would say it is in fact reckless, to simply assume that your sex partner is HIV negative, even if he or she tells you s/he is negative. People lie about sex sometimes. Just ask Bill!

So, if you are negative and consent to unprotected sex, you should bear the consequences, if any. It is not fair that your sex partner should have to incur criminal responsibility for your naivety.

Another issue I have with these laws is: what good does it do to put someone in jail for this? Is it to stop him/her from infecting others? Do you really think that is going to happen in jail? All that would do is limit the available pool of non-infected persons. Is it retribution? Doesn't the virus exact its own revenge? Does society need more?

I would like to read your thoughts on this. If you agree, please tell us why. If you disagree with me, try to change my mind! I'm always up for a good debate.

And remember, you can change your vote if you wish!

Enjoy!

J.R.

Logged

It goes like thisThe fourth, the fifth,The minor fall, the major lift,The baffled king composing Hallelujah!

That is a TOUGH question..... To actually just engage in sex with someone who KNOWS my status, my vote is NO it should NOT be a crime. But I feel that it SHOULD be a crime if you willingly expose someone to a deadly agent. Like (oh and I MAY get blasted for this) anthrax or whatever. There is my take.

Andrew

Logged

LIFE is not a race to the grave with the intention of arriving safelyin a pretty and well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in broadside,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--WOW! WHAT ARIDE!!!

Big fat no from me it's just not that simple. I don't think there is enough support for the newly diagnosed for a start. Obviously there is no defending someone who is purposely going around trying to infect other people but there's been a couple of cases in the news recently that weren't as cut and dry as that.

I don't believe the laws to be reasonable, rather they are a knee-jerk reaction by right-wing- terrorists who just have to demonize HIV and show the world how perverse gay sex really is. If they were so worried about spreading disease, then they would screen people for said diseases and provide prevention information that was based on science and not religious dogma.

Too many people want to paint pos people as some type of monsters and many of these laws have penalties that exceed those of murder and some that don't even require that the person became poz, just that they could have. I like Jonathan's comment: I call bullshit.

The laws are supported by our spineless legislators, who refused to adequately fund HIV and prevention services and need somewhere to deflect the blame. Their thinking is more along the lines of their being too insensitive or just downright stupid to mount a real campaign against HIV, because we all know that everyone who has it, did something to deserve it. And since they consider that fact, we then become default pariah and would be killers as we spread our demon seed.

There are already very adequate laws on the books to deal with the spreading of any known disease and anti-HIV laws are just meant to pander to the right-wing-terrorists.

We already have a law in our state. If you knowingly infect someone and didn't advise them of your status your ass is grass in Ohio. Now if you infect someone and you have not tested and do not know, then they will take it easier on ya. (yeah right) Now I believe if one knows their status and doesn't acknowledge it and proceeds to have unprotected sex, then yes they should lock them up and throw away the key.

Well then them women in UK ante-natal clinics who were negative at the start of pregnancy and positive at the end of their first trimester is gonna give birth in prison. They's only sleeping with their husbands, if we believe them, and it does happen, frequently even, that they are hit or kicked out of the home on disclosure, not to mention the "whore" branding etc. And the blokes don't get tested even, just move on.

This perhaps, according to the leading doc dealing with ante-natal care for HIV-positive African women at my clinic, means 1 in 6 African women attending.....

Is this at all right? Or the key-throwing right? Disclosure can contain some personal risk to life and limb, and perhaps children in the household. How do you disclose in these situations?

Not to mention the huge rose-tinted spectacles many untested (psychologically negative?) people wear.... Or indeed, a principle of equity between HIV and other infectious conditions.

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

and so on seem to abound of late. They're all just variations on the same dreary theme by members of the "Death Is Too Scary Too Ponder" and "I Can't Take Responsibility For Myself" tribes.

Not that I'm naming any names.

And don't tell me I don't have to read/participate in these threads because that's just a brainless truism. I understand that people are entitled to raise this banal topic and I'm entitled to bitch about it.

It's called dialogue.

The nasty reality is that I couldn't give a corn studded shit about what redneck citizen initated law against people with queer plague might be on the books in Kansas, Texas, South Carolina or any other dirt water red state. Citizens of the blue states shouldn't feel too smug either. I suspect the laws are similar there. Guess what? We have stupid laws like these in Australia too. I believe similar provisions abound in the UK and Europe and everywhere else.

It's because AIDS is a stigmatised disease -- and that's not going to change.

Seems to me that easy way around these sorts of things is to either serosort (ie only fuck other pozzies) or if you simply have to give that drunken neggie you met at the pub a tusk up the runter wear a condom. Disclosure? Well, either disclose and be done with it or lie about your name and don't take him/her/it back to your place.

good lord... whats with all the self loathing posts as of late..... what i do in my bedroom, livingroom, kitchen, shower, jacuzzi is my and my partners business.. (oops... that was TMI) really... the whole finger pointing attitude3 needs to stop.. i believe in full discloser, i also believe that we all need to take responsibility in our sexual health.... a bit of a sticky wicket.. yes... but the only one i control is me... yes... i have been with the same man for 20 years... yes there have been times when the condoms are just not gonna do.... that is HIS choice... and i gotta say.... i like it!!! shame on me but.... HE IS NEGITIVE!!!!

i love to react to the comment saying there is not enough support for newly diagnosed.I have spend since i have been diagnosed over 24 hours in hosptial listening to all kind of people , doctors, nurses, spycologists, dietists, special socialworkers ( why?) and a load more i forgot,with moments they make it way to much, sitting there listening to them going on and on and on.reacting on the original topic wether it should be a crime, yes and no, most of us are adults and can make a decision ourself, in my case that was having sex with guys unprotected on occasion, sort of stupid but my own responsability. i dont see this being a crime, If for instance you have sex and do not get told by6 someone carrying the hiv virus and get infected by that person while he or she wel knows you will get infected, that IS a crime in most country's and should be punished for that.now dont forget as we all know that a large number of people dont even know they are infected or dont want to get tested because of suspecting a bad outcome.i probably have got some people enraged with this comment but still think it is in some cases our own faulth ( like in mine), in some cases a accident and in some cases a crime

Big fat no from me it's just not that simple. I don't think there is enough support for the newly diagnosed for a start. Obviously there is no defending someone who is purposely going around trying to infect other people but there's been a couple of cases in the news recently that weren't as cut and dry as that.

Uh Matty, ummmm, Im from Kansas and we are BLUE state. AND IT SUCKS HIND TITTY BIG TIME! I think you may be colorblind and have your reds and blues mixed up! No problem, the convicts down your way usually tend to get things all upside down and bass ackwards!!!

Just Playin with ya HOMEY! Much love from This shit ass, blue state dwelling, cootie infected, chuckle monkey!

I SEE YOU!

WOOPS... i take it back.... it is THIS guy who's got it upside down and backwards! Many apologies from this DIP SHIT!

THIS IS ME!!!

« Last Edit: August 02, 2006, 09:05:42 PM by ACinKC »

Logged

LIFE is not a race to the grave with the intention of arriving safelyin a pretty and well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in broadside,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--WOW! WHAT ARIDE!!!

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

They don't arrest people who infect others with gonnorrhea, syphillis , chlamydia, and all of those other sexually transmitted diseases. So I don't agree with locking someone up who is HIV+. This is the Good ole USa and they never have a balance.

good lord... whats with all the self loathing posts as of late..... what i do in my bedroom, livingroom, kitchen, shower, jacuzzi is my and my partners business.. (oops... that was TMI) really... the whole finger pointing attitude3 needs to stop.. i believe in full discloser, i also believe that we all need to take responsibility in our sexual health.... a bit of a sticky wicket.. yes... but the only one i control is me... yes... i have been with the same man for 20 years... yes there have been times when the condoms are just not gonna do.... that is HIS choice... and i gotta say.... i like it!!! shame on me but.... HE IS NEGITIVE!!!!

lisbeth

And there you have it Ladies and Gentleman! Take responsibility for your own actions! Use protection at all times! It is just that simple!

Wow! That certainly got you talking! Even those who complained about having to talk about it eventually got around to talking about it, or at least why they were mad 'cause they had to talk about it!

And I didn't see much flaming.

And as usual, people are sharing their experiences and thoughts about living with this virus, and showing a lot of maturity and profound collective wisdom. As I knew they would. I have a lot of respect for everyone here on these boards!

Be the change you want to see. Gandhi (via Ann)

Okay, now for the news. We just had an earthquake here in SF! Not scary at all, only 4.4. Little roller! Thought you might like to know....

J.R.

Logged

It goes like thisThe fourth, the fifth,The minor fall, the major lift,The baffled king composing Hallelujah!

That's not because it's not a bonafide topic of discussion, it's that anybody who is a member here can vote... and most fears forum members read the living with forum... if you conduct a poll you will get skewed results.

There is no accountability for how people have voted so for subject like this, i would not have a poll and leave it for discussion.

What about liberal rednecks? Where do we fall? Have a feeling I won't like the answer....

I think not? Reason... After reading views like Jonathan's on this subject I have to agree. It could never be prosecuted or pursued fairly if it was a crime. There is no way to prove malicious intent. Who's word do you take? How do/could they prove something so privately held between two people? Who's the witness?

My stance has always been kind of an old school eye for an eye attitude. It's not logical... I admit. Because of my logic I have made a few enemies. Was my logic clouded? Somewhat... My thinking was not sole influenced in any way by my own infection, as some have pointed out, but also on morality. With that being said I must admit I have never been high on morals and unfortunately if there is a heaven I would probably be in hell with Matty.

I am torn... I sit the fence on this one...

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe it is my own personal issue that influences my thinking...

Fuck.... Lol I just cracked my nose wide open..literally. I got to go I got blood all over my friends office

The very thought of making it a crime just to have "unprotected" sex with someone when you have HIV just with that simple wording would have a lot of people in jail. I am married and she is negative. We thought long and hard about our decision to have sex after my diagnosis. I should, however, tell you that we were married for four years before my first diagnosis. The night before my diagnosis, in the hospital, we had unprotected sex. My diagnosis went from thinking I was negative to having AIDS, overnight. After getting out and recovering from PCP, we tried protection, but it just wasn't the same for us. It almost killed our sex life. So, we finally opted for what we had previously been doing. Over ten years later, my wife is still testing completely negative. THANK GOD! But under the simple wording of having unprotected sex with a neggie would have me in jail. Even though the decision was hers to do it. The issue is very complicated and therefore, would require very complicated wording to avoid putting the wrong people in jail. I would prefer having sex with someone that is poz, but even that simple wording would put many behind bars. Simply stating having unprotected sex with someone who is poz would put many other people in jail just because they, as poz people, would be having sex with other poz people. And we all know how good the medical staffs are in prisons. In jail, as a poz person, could end up being a death sentence for many. The only real crime is when a poz person KNOWING and WILLINGLY infects another person whom is negative without their knowledge. So, my response is a resounding NO!

Why don't you repeat yourself here? You won't be boring anyone!! You have an opinion, and it deserves to be expressed. You have worked out some of the toughest problems faced by anyone with HIV. Others haven't, and they need your thoughts to help them work things out individually.

I'm thinking about a post by frankie that I read in Lisa's (sdgirl) thread about what we want from the forum, (see how complicated it gets when we go meta?) Frankie has been on-line for several months without registering. He reads the threads, looks for the information he needs, and feels a little less isolated. I'll call him a casual user. There are plenty like him, for any number of reasons. They look here for answers. You have those answers inside you. Why not give it up?

Of course this is all academic. I have answered every HIV-related question I could ever conceive of, for myself. Most of us have, because you have to in order to survive. But some haven't yet. Personally, I would have loved access to an intelligent, thoughtful discussion of these baseline issues when I was coming up, but back then there was no internet as we now know it. Options were far more limited.

So, no, Mel, this is not an attack, it is all love. Why not repeat yourself?

J.R.

Logged

It goes like thisThe fourth, the fifth,The minor fall, the major lift,The baffled king composing Hallelujah!

In a Support Group, here in Calif a few years ago. Our topic of discussion that day was "how we became infected." I told the story of when I was sleeping when sex started and having been with this man on many occasions, there was no real reason to believe we were not having safer sex.

The facilitator of that group that that was a felony and my "friend" could be charged with felony endangerment. My "friend" was an attorney and that was 1994, whether or not I was sleeping or actively participating was purely an opinion which would not hold up in court. That "friend" did die and I left roses on his grave. I have moved on with my life and I take care of myself. Doctor says I have no reason not to expect to live to see old age, if I do not get hit by a bus. I am very careful around public transportation.

I hope someday, there will be someone who will leave roses on my grave. Have the best dayMichael(who once again failed to participate in the poll)

I read an interesting paper the other day, which echoes my opinion on this topic, exactly. I'd like to share it with you, if I may, today.

The paragraph I want to record here was at the end of the long article, actually, an interview with Dr. Matthew Weait, lecturer in law at Keele University, who facilitated a series of seminars in the UK (Keele, Dec. '05, Birkbeck College, Mar. '06, and Keele, Jun. '06) and lectured at the British HIV Association (BHIVA) in Breighton, Mar. '06:

QUESTION: (Edwin J. Bernard, journalist) "I became acutely aware of some of criminalisation's ethical and moral difficulties during the weekend. Many of the HIV-positive individuals attending the seminar-myself included-do not want to be seen to condone the actions of some of the people who have been prosecuted so far, but at the same time, we are afraid of the consequences of criminalisation for ourselves and others."

ANSWER: (Dr. Matthew Weait) "I think it's really important to recognise the long term impact of these prosecutions, whatever one's ethical or moral stance. What harm does criminalisation do to the broader question of public health? Does it mean that people are so afraid of disclosing their status to sexual partners, because of the kind of coverage that people with HIV get in the press as a result of the prosecution, that they're not going to disclose despite the consequences? Does it mean not telling the truth about a sexual history to an HIV or GU Clinician, which is critical to contact tracing. Will it make people think twice about voluntary HIV testing, or being honest about the results of that test? If that's the case, then we've lost a significant battle in the war against onward transmission."

'What we should really be concerned about is ridding the world of this virus, and it seems to me that we need to think of HIV and AIDS socially, and not individually. We need to think of it as something that affects communities and which needs to be responded to at a social and community level, and not in the one-on-one adversarial process that a criminal trial produces, and which only ever sends out the message that one person was responsible and the other wasn't; that one person's a victim, and one person's a perpetrator. Criminal trials, whatever their other effects, affirm in the public and popular imagination that HIV-positive people can only be understood as vectors of onwards transmission."

For me, this says it all.

I was linked to this article by aidsmap (www.aidsmap.com/en/news and the date was July 19th. ("Safer Law: Moving from Theory to Practice")

These laws are flawed from a logic based perspective to begin with. They don't cover HIV infected people who have NOT gotten tested. Why should someone who got tested be more responsible than someone who hasn't? That's one problem. Aside from that most thinking people would argue that these very laws discourage people from getting tested as well, which is why many states with large HIV populations do not have such laws.

That said, we all probably agree that the responsible thing for those infected is to tell someone and let them make the decision. At least that's my opinion. I didn't always practice this though but made damn sure I engaged in safer sex.

Well, I'm not voting because I feel it's pretty pointless. However here in the UK we have a law which forbids knowingly passing the virus if you have tested positive. May be it's not a perfect law but, all the same HIV is an incurable fatal disease & the outlook even with HAART is uncertain. Therefore I support the law if it prevents just one person getting this damn virus....

Unprotected sex with someone who is also positive and knows my status seems to be more in the area of mutual consent than in the legal arena. However, there is also the risk that the other party may have a different strain of the virus, thus enters the risk of complicating each others' health. It's a tough cross to bear at times, this (moral?) responsibility but that's what proves our mettle, no?

Hello...... Hello...... Hellllllllllllllooooo!!!!!!!!!! Am I the only one that remembers President Raygun, and his proposed policy to export all HIV+ people offshore to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba??? Am I the only one that remembers the Pink Triangles of the Third Reich??? What you people need is a severe reminder of the history of legislating personal private actions. My views here are no secret, and most of you know how I feel about these issues in a Capitalist Democracy, but to simply state; if you become infected with HIV in this time in space, IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT, OR ELSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE OF ANY SORT!!!!!! I do wish the world were a different place, but if any of us advocate for legislating personal private behavior, you should immediately get in line to bring "Soylent Green" into reality??

If any of you got the impression that this poll, many of your responses, and this whole subject; slightly pissed me off, then you would be right. Anything beyond personal responsibility, and knowledge of this plague, just rots my socks, and to go through the world expecting someone else to be responsible for my stupidity is "Dumber than Stupid", and to find this discussion here, appalls me to no end.

In Shock and Awe!

Edited to add, if you were infected through an act of forced rape, then please ignore the above statement.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 09:13:40 AM by Moffie65 »

Logged

The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals,and 362 to heterosexuals.This doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals, It's just that they need more supervision.Lynn Lavne

No one else has said it, so i guess i will give it a shot....if anyone gets offended, then so be it.

should it be a crime? YES....do i think that law is right (or just) No.

my reasoning: Zeph, touched on it,actually but i will put it in laymans terms. The Constitution of united states starts out "We The People of The United States of America"

in todays reality, we the people have failed each other, everyone of us. Many sit back and bitch about things, and thats the ONLY thing they do, as if that will eventually change it. We have sat back and turned this country over to politicians & foreigners. People gotta do more than just raise hell about issues, they have to vote, the have to get EVERYONES support, and have them too vote these issues down.

a good example is in the past ACT UP was formed, and through a unified effort, they made some huge progress in the world of HIV. Sure they raised hell in thier own fashion, but most importantly, they all dropped thier individual differences of opinion,etc. and focused on the matter at hand at that time. MOST importantly, they won the support of those who werent gay, who werent hiv positive,etc. And issues were changed appropriately. and well, to be quite frank....thats what its gonna take to change this kinda issue as well. In our own country, the majority of the population wont even vote, and the others, well they simply wont even put forth effort to get them to. So, yes....as long as we the people choose to sit back, and bitch about how unfair this or that is, and thats the only thing we do...then it should be law. Stop and look at the things people bitch about, and how fucked up they are simply because we as individuals are so caught up in self centeredness, that we refuse to look at the whole picture. We are only worried about "us"

think about it, we live in a place, that we have allowed our government to first abolish alcohol, then bring it back under THIER control. they control the potentcy, they make a killing off the tax. Its totally legal to drive TO the bar and drink....but we have allowed them to make laws,that state its illegal to drive home from that bar, that serves who's product? Our government.Do you see people on the court house lawn, bitching that we need to abolish alcohol, because its one sided, it only works one way,etc? NOOOOOO Do you see them doing the same things with tobacco? they certainly are, they have read OUR message, loud and clear...our message being, that do as you wish, we wont do anything but bitch about it.

we live in a place that sure its legal to own a gun, our constitutional rights say so. But since that constitution, we the people have allowed politicians, to have thier way with that issue as well. Now, we can own the gun, and it was designed as a mechanism to kill, but we cant kill with it, even certain animals,at certain times etc. Who makes the gun laws...the politicians, who bitches about it, and gets the brundt end of it....we the people. But who ALLOWED this to happen to this way? We the people

Hiv isnt much different, we the people have allowed our own government, to drop the ball, and why not, we the people have dropped the ball as well. Sure a handful of us do vote, but how many take time out of thier lives to get thier communities behind them, thier states? sadly, not many. So i guess HIV stays the same as the gun, we are allowed to own it, but if we knowingly point it at someone and shoot it, we pay the consequence. We allowed our government to refuse to manufacture medicines for HIV, now the big pharma has that responsibilty, what do we do....we bitch about the costs, we bitch about the healthcare,the consequences etc. NOTHING CHANGES ,IF NOTHING CHANGES. if we keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we have been getting. We've let everyone else have control, and then bitch about it when our expectattions arent met.

We the people have gotten complacent, and let the people who work for us, have control. And the only way to change any of this is to drop our differences for the unified cause, and be heard on ALL levels local,state,national. Look at what the immigrants did, the joined in unison, and got heard. what does that say to "we the people" when a bunch of illegals will put forth the effort, and we the citizens wont?

in closing . I've alot from being diagnosed with Aids, but one thing in particular, i have learned well is personal accountability. and well the reality of it, we the people, as citizens, each and everyone of us, are accountable for all the issues we've allowed to happen in this great country. Most of the world dont even get this oppurtunity where the people have a say in what goes on, and here we are, taking our oppurtunity for granted.No different than HIV, if one is just gonna sit back and let it happen, then one better be willing to accept all that comes with it. We have allowed Money & Politics to rule us, so we better be willing to accept all that will come with that, and this issue in this thread, is one of those things.

No way am I going to tear you up. You hit it right on the head. These laws are a reality that we have to accept, unless we are willing to DO something about them. I have some ideas (which occurred to me while reading your post) but I need to work them out before I start blathering about them. Any ideas of your own?

Zeph, you so totally rock!!!!!!! Thank you so much for posting that quote. That is the clearest expression of the absurdity of these laws, based on sound legal reasoning and made by a respected legal scholar no less, that I have ever read. Where did you find that? Tell me your secrets!

I have decided to start a blog, partly because I have only just figured out how to do it, but mostly because I have a lot to say, the bulk of which is better presented as a blog than in a discussion group. But I will most definitely continue hanging out here starting discussions (or trouble, as you will). Discussions generate ideas in a way a blog cannot. Just look at this one. It got a lot of quality responses, and spurred a lot of interest. Drawing out Zeph's article alone made it all worthwhile.

Thank you to everyone who expressed an opinion here. Especially to those who were appalled, because you did express your opinion. Appalled is an equally valid opinion, and should be expressed in its fullest depth and breadth just like every other.

As for endless repetition of the arguments, restating your position can only make it stronger, make your understanding of the issues stronger, refine it against new facts, and ultimately strengthen your conviction in it.

There are no right or wrong answers. Only solutions that work for each of us individually. And we have to arrive at those solutions individually. Discussions like this one help, because it will be seen by a large number of non-participants. Somebody will be helped.

Mel, I apologize for singling you out yesterday. I shouldn't have put you on the spot like that. I was wrong to do it. Felt bad about that all last night. Still would love to read your story, but only if you wish it.

Later all,

J.R.

I repeat: Zeph, you totally rock!!!!!!

Logged

It goes like thisThe fourth, the fifth,The minor fall, the major lift,The baffled king composing Hallelujah!

I am truly dismayed at many of the things I have read on this topic, here and on the question of that woman in the U.K. who was jailed for infecting her lover. That was too good for her!The selfishness that pervades the minds of some of the people who are “tired of being responsible for neggies’ health” is appalling. What kind of talk is this? Neggies? Pozzies? What team are you on?Us and them.Is this a competitive marathon?And we wonder why Society isn’t sympathetic to people with HIV/AIDS?That anyone can justify knowingly putting someone at risk of acquiring this disease is to reveal that they have sunk beneath the consciousness of a criminal animal.There was a time, long ago, when we just didn’t know what AIDS is. But today, when I look through the writing of these threads, I do not see very much intelligence or integrity.Just stop, take a deep breath and read through the pages and pages on this website of the pain that people are suffering. There is an ever-appearing question: “When will AIDS be over?”With the attitudes I read here, it will never end. The behaviour defended here is no different than what we read about in Sub-Saharan Africa where this disease is spreading like warm butter on toast.The effects of it…the side effects of the drug combinations, the mental anguish, the slow death…—“Sure, this woman was responsible for infecting her lover, but he was equally responsible for letting it happen.”—To justify giving this to anyone is insane.Frankly, “POZ People” as a label for a community, is some kind of unconscionable club I’m deeply ashamed of, and not because I’m positive, but because of the willingness I behold: the willingness of people to give this disease to other people.The fact is that the new infection rate is rising—here, today—25 years after this began! It has been rising here, in North America, since the Durban Conference six years ago!After all the deaths—I’m revolted by this stupidity.And I say, “Yes, jail them. Lock them up. Throw away the key!”

Bullshit. No one here condones passing the virus to others. Do not foist your shame upon us. I am neither a victim nor a perpetrator.

It's attitudes like this that make ME afraid that we learned nothing from the early years of the pandemic.

Seriously, I can't even type a rational response to you.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

last time i checked.. it took 2 ... im so tired of all of this crap... i feel as though a bomb has gone off in my gut... those of you that wrote your thesis in this thread, i hope you feel better... for the rest of us, we are who we are, and we have as many rights as anyone else... god i hate this..

My story and my views on the matter of criminilizing hiv transmission are pretty long-winded and complex. I have a lot on my plate at the moment and I just haven't got the time or energy to spell them out again. Plus I don't see the point in repeating myself when it really is all here:

The reason I gave you the links in my original post was so that you could get a clearer picture of my situation and to give you a couple of interesting threads to read too on this matter. Afterwards I realised you had already posted on Rob-Dublin's thread. Anyway, I guess if you're interested you will check out the links. My screen name is the same in the archived links, so if you scroll down you'll find me there.

Melia

Logged

/\___/\ /\__/\(=' . '=) (=' . '=)(,,,_ ,,,)/ (,,,_ ,,,)/ Cats rule!

The difference between cats and dogs is that dogs come when called, whereas cats take a message and get back to you.

If a person supports legislation that adds to/perpetuates the stigma of having HIV, then aforementioned person is really being disengenuous when s/he complains about being a victim of HIV stigma in his/her community.

I'm just saying.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I am not disingenuous. I'm probably one of the most honest and sincere people you will ever encounter in your life...

My case was a very extreme and ongoing catalogue of deceit and subsequent infection over years. I'm guessing they won't mind me saying, as they have already openly declared this in other threads, but even the likes of Ann and Matty (and Moffie to a certain degree), who are normally dead-set against prosecution, support my actions against my ex.

There are always exceptions to rules/scenarios.

I'm curious to know exactly what people who are 100% against such legislation think about such exceptions? Or do they dig their heels in so hard that they refuse to acknowledge there are exceptions?

Melia

Logged

/\___/\ /\__/\(=' . '=) (=' . '=)(,,,_ ,,,)/ (,,,_ ,,,)/ Cats rule!

The difference between cats and dogs is that dogs come when called, whereas cats take a message and get back to you.

I say if one is mature enough in this day and age to have sex, one must be wise enough to take responsibility for ones' self! Morally, I think a positive person should disclose his or her status before having sex, should this be a law? NO.... NO.....NO. The minute a government can make laws about something so intimate as sex is the minute a free society is no longer truly free.

Well I's gonna say it, sometimes I am in favour of proseution for transmission of disease agents, including HIV. I am not in favour of stupid and specific HIV laws like many US states seems to have. The UK is, I belive, well served by the old, old Offences Against the Person Act in this respect, even though HIV wasn't around when it drafted.

I am definitely in favour of procecution for intentional and malicious transmission. I am sometimes in favour for reckless transmission. It depends on the circumstances. It seems to me a world of difference between people having a one-night-stand and getting caught out, cos I think they should know better, and people who have been deceived in a relationship (for what is a relationship if not based on honesty?).

However, this is a sticking point for me, which I haven't worked out in my head. People here will appreciate that disclosure can be difficult, in the same breath that they acknowledge it is right. To disclose that you have HIV you first have to admit it to yourself, and this can take time. But sooner or later you have to disclose, and truthfully some people are lying, cheating bastards who are not in denial about their HIV status and who don;t care for the welfare of others, they just don;t want the grief of dealing with disclosure, prob. not of HIV but of infidelity. On the other hand, people who's not sorted about HIV in their head need guidance, and in my experience get little or no support around disclosure. And sometimes, disclosure (or for that matter a sudden move to use condoms) can put their saftey, or the roof over their head or their children's head, at risk. Plus the assumption is often that the person diagnosed last was infected last, which isn;t always so.....

Which brings me to what I think are the more serious points (for the UK).

1. The media: no run-of-the mill case of grevious bodily harm would make the front page, unless it involved a celebrity. HIV is a celebrity in the Myra Hindley mode, and we are all tarred with this brush every time a "Pure Evil" headline appears. Obviously HIV touches a deep (moral) fear among the general population or else these cases would not be news. I belive the gay guy senteced yesterday prob. deserved to go to prison for a catalogue of domestic violence against his partner. The real story here is the police's willingness to take domestic violence in same sex relationships seriously, not the HIV angle. That they got him for transmitting HIV is really incidental. But the press dont sell papers or get a vicarious moral kick out of the broader version of events.

2. The police: I reckon the reason so many gay men are dead against any kind of HIV-related prosecution is because the very fact they exit is a license to harrass gay men (and lesbians for that matter), and scrutinise their sex lives, out them to work and family etc. We don't want the law sniffing around, for good, historical reasons. No police force has guidance on investigating these cases, and, frankly, some of our CID boys in blue are deeply homophobic, over-zealous and speculative in their approach to these situations. It's an easy call by a narked off lover to claim possible HIV infection (note the possible) to trigger an upset of the other bloke's life and general flying of shit. Or indeed some "well-meaning" third party. Two of my friends got a door call from the constabulary cos a mutual "friend" disapproved of them having sex without condoms (one's positive, on ain't). They were not impressed, since they know the score about each other and it's a choice they have made, after much deliberation, that it;s what they wanna do. (They were advised to see a lawyer and swear an affadavit to record this decision, but the police dropped it anyway).

I believe the law in the UK can be implemented as it stands with the proviso that investigations go ahead when a complaint is made by one party in a long-term relationship & subject to cautions about self-acknowledgement etc, but pick-ups, community/neighbours' moral angst, no go.

Plus if people were a bit more sussed about "no HIV in my backyard" and grown-up about mutual testing before dropping the condoms, a lot of the grief would be avoided. (of course, this don;t work through for people in relationships where you;s not supposed to be playing away, and therefore you don't use condoms).

I also wonder, if people had access to a civil remedy rather than criminal one, if they would prefer that route.